The existential crisis of bipolar II disorder

Single-Dose Synthetic Psilocybin With Psychotherapy for Treatment-Resistant Bipolar Type II Major Depressive Episodes: A Nonrandomized Open-Label Trial

Importance

Bipolar II disorder (BDII) is a debilitating condition frequently associated with difficult-to-treat depressive episodes. Psilocybin has evidence for rapid-acting antidepressant effects but has not been investigated in bipolar depression.

Objective

To establish the safety and efficacy of psilocybin in patients with BDII in a current depressive episode.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a 12-week, open-label nonrandomized open-label trial conducted at Sheppard Pratt Hospital. Participants aged 18 to 65 years with BDII, a current depressive episode longer than 3 months, and documented insufficient benefit with at least 2 pharmacologic treatments during the current episode were invited to participate. Of 70 approached, 19 met inclusion criteria and were enrolled. The trial was conducted between April 14, 2021, and January 5, 2023.

Interventions

A single dose of synthetic psilocybin, 25 mg, was administered. Psychotropic medications were discontinued at least 2 weeks prior to dosing. Therapists met with patients for 3 sessions during pretreatment, during the 8-hour dosing day, and for 3 integration sessions posttreatment.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome measure was change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating scale (MADRS) at 3 weeks posttreatment. Secondary measures included MADRS scores 12 weeks posttreatment, the self-rated Quick Inventory of Depression Symptoms-Self Rating (QIDS-SR), and the self-rated Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form (Q-LES-Q-SF), each completed at baseline and all subsequent visits. Safety measures included the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (CSSRS) and the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) completed at each visit.

Results

Of the 15 participants in this study (6 male and 9 female; mean [SD] age, 37.8 [11.6] years), all had lower scores at week 3, with a mean (SD) change of -24.00 (9.23) points on the MADRS, (Cohen d = 4.08; 95% CI, -29.11 to -18.89; P < .001). Repeat measures analysis of variance showed lower MADRS scores at all tested posttreatment time points, including the end point (Cohen d = 3.39; 95% CI, -33.19 to -16.95; adjusted P < .001). At week 3, 12 participants met the response criterion (50% decrease in MADRS), and 11 met remission criterion (MADRS score ≤10). At the study end point, 12 patients met both response and remission criteria. QIDS-SR scores and Q-LES-Q-SF scores demonstrated similar improvements. YMRS and CSSRS scores did not change significantly at posttreatment compared to baseline.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings in this open-label nonrandomized open-label trial suggest efficacy and safety of psilocybin with psychotherapy in BDII depression and supports further study of psychedelics in this population.

Clinical distinctions in symptomatology and psychiatric comorbidities between misdiagnosed bipolar I and bipolar II disorder versus major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

To explore the demographic and clinical features of current depressive episode that discriminate patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) from those with bipolar I (BP-I) and bipolar II (BP-II) disorder who were misdiagnosed as having MDD .

METHODS

The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) assessment was performed to establish DSM-IV diagnoses of MDD, and BP-I and BP-II, previously being misdiagnosed as MDD. Demographics, depressive symptoms and psychiatric comorbidities were compared between 1463 patients with BP-I, BP-II and MDD from 8 psychiatric settings in mainland China. A multinomial logistic regression model was performed to assess clinical correlates of diagnoses.

RESULTS

A total of 14.5% of the enrolled patients initially diagnosed with MDD were eventually diagnosed with BP. Broad illness characteristics including younger age, higher prevalence of recurrence, concurrent dysthymia, suicidal attempts, agitation, psychotic features and psychiatric comorbidities, as well as lower prevalence of insomnia, weight loss and somatic symptoms were featured by patients with BP-I and/or BP-I, compared to those with MDD. Comparisons between BP-I and BP-II versus MDD indicated distinct symptom profiles and comorbidity patterns with more differences being observed between BP-II and MDD, than between BP-I and MDD .

CONCLUSION

The results provide evidence of clinically distinguishing characteristics between misdiagnosed BP-I and BP- II versus MDD. The findings have implications for guiding more accurate diagnoses of bipolar disorders.

Countering the declining use of lithium therapy: a call to arms

For over half a century, it has been widely known that lithium is the most efficacious treatment for bipolar disorder. Yet, despite this, its prescription has consistently declined over this same period of time. A number of reasons for this apparent disparity between evidence and clinical practice have been proposed, including a lack of confidence amongst clinicians possibly because of an absence of training and lack of familiarity with the molecule. Simultaneously, competition has grown within the pharmacological armamentarium for bipolar disorder with newer treatments promoting an image of being safer and easier to prescribe primarily because of not necessitating plasma monitoring, which understandably is appealing to patients who then exercise their preferences accordingly. However, these somewhat incipient agents are yet to reach the standard lithium has attained in terms of its efficacy in providing prophylaxis against the seemingly inevitable recrudescence of acute episodes that punctuates the course of bipolar disorder. In addition, none of these mimics have the additional benefits of preventing suicide and perhaps providing neuroprotection. Thus, a change in strategy is urgently required, wherein myths regarding the supposed difficulties in prescribing lithium and the gravity of its side-effects are resolutely dispelled. It is this cause to which we have pledged our allegiance and it is to this end that we have penned this article.

Differential characteristics of bipolar I and II disorders: a retrospective, cross-sectional evaluation of clinical features, illness course, and response to treatment

BACKGROUND

The distinction between bipolar I and bipolar II disorder and its treatment implications have been a matter of ongoing debate. The aim of this study was to examine differences between patients with bipolar I and II disorders with particular emphasis on the early phases of the disorders.

METHODS

808 subjects diagnosed with bipolar I (N = 587) or bipolar II disorder (N = 221) according to DSM-IV criteria were recruited between April 1994 and March 2022 from tertiary-level mood disorder clinics. Sociodemographic and clinical variables concerning psychiatric and medical comorbidities, family history, illness course, suicidal behavior, and response to treatment were compared between the bipolar disorder types.

RESULTS

Bipolar II disorder patients were more frequently women, older, married or widowed. Bipolar II disorder was associated with later "bipolar" presentation, higher age at first (hypo)mania and treatment, less frequent referral after a single episode, and more episodes before lithium treatment. A higher proportion of first-degree relatives of bipolar II patients were affected by major depression and anxiety disorders. The course of bipolar II disorder was typically characterized by depressive onset, early depressive episodes, multiple depressive recurrences, and depressive predominant polarity; less often by (hypo)mania or (hypo)mania-depression cycles at onset or during the early course. The lifetime clinical course was more frequently rated as chronic fluctuating than episodic. More patients with bipolar II disorder had a history of rapid cycling and/or high number of episodes. Mood stabilizers and antipsychotics were prescribed less frequently during the early course of bipolar II disorder, while antidepressants were more common. We found no differences in global functioning, lifetime suicide attempts, family history of suicide, age at onset of mood disorders and depressive episodes, and lithium response.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences between bipolar I and II disorders are not limited to the severity of (hypo)manic syndromes but include patterns of clinical course and family history. Caution in the use of potentially mood-destabilizing agents is warranted during the early course of bipolar II disorder.

Status of Type II vs. Type I Bipolar Disorder: Systematic Review with Meta-Analyses

LEARNING OBJECTIVES AFTER PARTICIPATING IN THIS CME ACTIVITY, THE PSYCHIATRIST SHOULD BE BETTER ABLE TO

• Analyze and compare the different bipolar disorder (BD) types.• Identify markers that distinguish BD types and explain how the DSM-IV defines the disorder.

ABSTRACT

Since the status of type II bipolar disorder (BD2) as a separate and distinct form of bipolar disorder (BD) remains controversial, we reviewed studies that directly compare BD2 to type I bipolar disorder (BD1). Systematic literature searching yielded 36 reports with head-to-head comparisons involving 52,631 BD1 and 37,363 BD2 patients (total N = 89,994) observed for 14.6 years, regarding 21 factors (with 12 reports/factor). BD2 subjects had significantly more additional psychiatric diagnoses, depressions/year, rapid cycling, family psychiatric history, female sex, and antidepressant treatment, but less treatment with lithium or antipsychotics, fewer hospitalizations or psychotic features, and lower unemployment rates than BD1 subjects. However, the diagnostic groups did not differ significantly in education, onset age, marital status, [hypo]manias/year, risk of suicide attempts, substance use disorders, medical comorbidities, or access to psychotherapy. Heterogeneity in reported comparisons of BD2 and BD1 limits the firmness of some observations, but study findings indicate that the BD types differ substantially by several descriptive and clinical measures and that BD2 remains diagnostically stable over many years. We conclude that BD2 requires better clinical recognition and significantly more research aimed at optimizing its treatment.

Optimizing multi-domain hematologic biomarkers and clinical features for the differential diagnosis of unipolar depression and bipolar depression

There is a lack of objective features for the differential diagnosis of unipolar and bipolar depression, especially those that are readily available in practical settings. We investigated whether clinical features of disease course, biomarkers from complete blood count, and blood biochemical markers could accurately classify unipolar and bipolar depression using machine learning methods. This retrospective study included 1160 eligible patients (918 with unipolar depression and 242 with bipolar depression). Patient data were randomly split into training (85%) and open test (15%) sets 1000 times, and the average performance was reported. XGBoost achieved the optimal open-test performance using selected biomarkers and clinical features-AUC 0.889, sensitivity 0.831, specificity 0.839, and accuracy 0.863. The importance of features for differential diagnosis was measured using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values. The most informative features include (1) clinical features of disease duration and age of onset, (2) biochemical markers of albumin, low density lipoprotein (LDL), and potassium, and (3) complete blood count-derived biomarkers of white blood cell count (WBC), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and monocytes (MONO). Overall, onset features and hematologic biomarkers appear to be reliable information that can be readily obtained in clinical settings to facilitate the differential diagnosis of unipolar and bipolar depression.

Bipolar disorder in the International Classification of Diseases-Eleventh version: A review of the changes, their basis, and usefulness

The World Health Organization’s 11^th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) including the chapter on mental disorders has come into effect this year. This review focuses on the “Bipolar or Related Disorders” section of the ICD-11 draft. It describes the benchmarks for the new version, particularly the foremost principle of clinical utility. The alterations made to the diagnosis of bipolar disorder (BD) are evaluated on their scientific basis and clinical utility. The change in the diagnostic requirements for manic and hypomanic episodes has been much debated. Whether the current criteria have achieved an optimum balance between sensitivity and specificity is still not clear. The ICD-11 definition of depressive episodes is substantially different, but the lack of empirical support for the changes has meant that the reliability and utility of bipolar depression are relatively low. Unlike the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5^th edition (DSM-5), the ICD-11 has retained the category of mixed episodes. Although the concept of mixed episodes in the ICD-11 is not perfect, it appears to be more inclusive than the DSM-5 approach. Additionally, there are some uncertainties about the guidelines for the subtypes of BD and cyclothymic disorder. The initial results on the reliability and clinical utility of BD are promising, but the newly created diagnostic categories also appear to have some limitations. Although further improvement and research are needed, the focus should now be on facing the challenges of implementation, dissemination, and education and training in the use of these guidelines.

Latent subtypes of manic and/or irritable episode symptoms in two population-based cohorts

BACKGROUND

Mood disorders are characterised by pronounced symptom heterogeneity, which presents a substantial challenge both to clinical practice and research. Identification of subgroups of individuals with homogeneous symptom profiles that cut across current diagnostic categories could provide insights in to the transdiagnostic relevance of individual symptoms, which current categorical diagnostic systems cannot impart.

AIMS

To identify groups of people with homogeneous clinical characteristics, using symptoms of manic and/or irritable mood, and explore differences between groups in diagnoses, functional outcomes and genetic liability.

METHOD

We used latent class analysis on eight binary self-reported symptoms of manic and irritable mood in the UK Biobank and PROTECT studies, to investigate how individuals formed latent subgroups. We tested associations between the latent classes and diagnoses of psychiatric disorders, sociodemographic characteristics and polygenic risk scores.

RESULTS

Five latent classes were derived in UK Biobank (N = 42 183) and were replicated in the independent PROTECT cohort (N = 4445), including 'minimally affected', 'inactive restless', active restless', 'focused creative' and 'extensively affected' individuals. These classes differed in disorder risk, polygenic risk score and functional outcomes. One class that experienced disruptive episodes of mostly irritable mood largely comprised cases of depression/anxiety, and a class of individuals with increased confidence/creativity reported comparatively lower disruptiveness and functional impairment.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that data-driven investigations of psychopathological symptoms that include sub-diagnostic threshold conditions can complement research of clinical diagnoses. Improved classification systems of psychopathology could investigate a weighted approach to symptoms, toward a more dimensional classification of mood disorders.

Heterogeneous early illness courses of Korean patients with bipolar disorders: replication of the staging model

BACKGROUND

Clinical staging of bipolar disorder (BD) requires application of real-world data, as the next step in hypothesis. This study used the staging model to analyze the long-term course of BD in Korean patients based on clinical features and treatment responses to map the progression of bipolar illness from its early phase after the onset of illness.

METHODS

A total of 136 patients diagnosed with BD-I (n = 62) or BD-II (n = 74) were recruited. Their progressive stages were retrospectively evaluated. A multi-state model was used to calculate the probability of progression to each stage. Hazard ratios of covariates expected to influence different courses of BD were calculated. Using the Alda score, long-term responses to mood stabilizers depending on the current stage were compared.

RESULTS

Several sub-populations showed varied courses during the first five years after the onset of illness, with 41.5% remaining in stage 2 and 53% progressing to higher stages with shortened time for transition. Profiles of patients with BD-I and BD-II were different, suggesting biologically distinct groups. Comorbid psychiatric disorders, such as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and bulimia nervosa (BN) were associated with a recurrent course (stage 3a or 3b) or a malignant course (stage 3c or 4). Early age of onset, shorter duration of illness, older age at the start of medication, and poor response to lithium affected the illness progression.

CONCLUSION

We were able to apply the stage model based on episode recurrence patterns in early illness courses of Korean patients with BD. The stage progression pattern differed from the early phase in BD-I and BD-II patients. Psychotic comorbidity, age at onset, age at starting psychiatric treatment showed associations with the illness progression.

Differences between bipolar disorder types 1 and 2 support the DSM two-syndrome concept

Objective

To compare characteristics of bipolar disorder patients diagnosed as DSM-5 types I (BD-1) vs. II (BD-2).

Methods

We compared descriptive, psychopathological, and treatment characteristics in a sample of 1377 consenting, closely and repeatedly evaluated adult BD patient-subjects from a specialty clinic, using bivariate methods and logistic multivariable modeling.

Results

Factors found more among BD-2 > BD-1 cases included: [a] descriptors (more familial affective disorder, older at onset, diagnosis and first-treatment, more education, employment and higher socioeconomic status, more marriage and children, and less obesity); [b] morbidity (more general medical diagnoses, less drug abuse and smoking, more initial depression and less [hypo]mania or psychosis, longer episodes, higher intake depression and anxiety ratings, less mood-switching with antidepressants, less seasonal mood-change, greater %-time depressed and less [hypo]manic, fewer hospitalizations, more depression-predominant polarity, DMI > MDI course-pattern, and less violent suicidal behavior); [c] specific item-scores with initial HDRS₂₁ (higher scores for depression, guilt, suicidality, insomnia, anxiety, agitation, gastrointestinal symptoms, hypochondriasis and weight-loss, with less psychomotor retardation, depersonalization, or paranoia); and [d] treatment (less use of lithium or antipsychotics, more antidepressant and benzodiazepine treatment).

Conclusions

BD-2 was characterized by more prominent and longer depressions with some hypomania and mixed-features but not mania and rarely psychosis. BD-2 subjects had higher socioeconomic and functional status but also high levels of long-term morbidity and suicidal risk. Accordingly, BD-2 is dissimilar to, but not necessarily less severe than BD-1, consistent with being distinct syndromes.

Strategies and foundations for scientific discovery in longitudinal studies of bipolar disorder

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a complex and dynamic condition with a typical onset in late adolescence or early adulthood followed by an episodic course with intervening periods of subthreshold symptoms or euthymia. It is complicated by the accumulation of comorbid medical and psychiatric disorders. The etiology of BD remains unknown and no reliable biological markers have yet been identified. This is likely due to lack of comprehensive ontological framework and, most importantly, the fact that most studies have been based on small nonrepresentative clinical samples with cross-sectional designs. We propose to establish large, global longitudinal cohorts of BD studied consistently in a multidimensional and multidisciplinary manner to determine etiology and help improve treatment. Herein we propose collection of a broad range of data that reflect the heterogenic phenotypic manifestations of BD that include dimensional and categorical measures of mood, neurocognitive, personality, behavior, sleep and circadian, life-story, and outcomes domains. In combination with genetic and biological information such an approach promotes the integrating and harmonizing of data within and across current ontology systems while supporting a paradigm shift that will facilitate discovery and become the basis for novel hypotheses.

Translational evidence for lithium-induced brain plasticity and neuroprotection in the treatment of neuropsychiatric disorders

Increasing evidence indicates lithium (Li+) efficacy in neuropsychiatry, pointing to overlapping mechanisms that occur within distinct neuronal populations. In fact, the same pathway depending on which circuitry operates may fall in the psychiatric and/or neurological domains. Li+ restores both neurotransmission and brain structure unveiling that psychiatric and neurological disorders share common dysfunctional molecular and morphological mechanisms, which may involve distinct brain circuitries. Here an overview is provided concerning the therapeutic/neuroprotective effects of Li+ in different neuropsychiatric disorders to highlight common molecular mechanisms through which Li+ produces its mood-stabilizing effects and to what extent these overlap with plasticity in distinct brain circuitries. Li+ mood-stabilizing effects are evident in typical bipolar disorder (BD) characterized by a cyclic course of mania or hypomania followed by depressive episodes, while its efficacy is weaker in the opposite pattern. We focus here on neural adaptations that may underlie psychostimulant-induced psychotic development and to dissect, through the sensitization process, which features are shared in BD and other psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia. The multiple functions of Li+ highlighted here prove its exceptional pharmacology, which may help to elucidate its mechanisms of action. These may serve as a guide toward a multi-drug strategy. We propose that the onset of sensitization in a specific BD subtype may predict the therapeutic efficacy of Li+. This model may help to infer in BD which molecular mechanisms are relevant to the therapeutic efficacy of Li+.

The 2020 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for mood disorders

OBJECTIVES

To provide advice and guidance regarding the management of mood disorders, derived from scientific evidence and supplemented by expert clinical consensus to formulate s that maximise clinical utility.

METHODS

Articles and information sourced from search engines including PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Google Scholar were supplemented by literature known to the mood disorders committee (e.g. books, book chapters and government reports) and from published depression and bipolar disorder guidelines. Relevant information was appraised and discussed in detail by members of the mood disorders committee, with a view to formulating and developing consensus-based recommendations and clinical guidance. The guidelines were subjected to rigorous consultation and external review involving: expert and clinical advisors, key stakeholders, professional bodies and specialist groups with interest in mood disorders.

RESULTS

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists mood disorders clinical practice guidelines 2020 (MDcpg²⁰²⁰) provide up-to-date guidance regarding the management of mood disorders that is informed by evidence and clinical experience. The guideline is intended for clinical use by psychiatrists, psychologists, primary care physicians and others with an interest in mental health care.

CONCLUSION

The MDcpg²⁰²⁰ builds on the previous 2015 guidelines and maintains its joint focus on both depressive and bipolar disorders. It provides up-to-date recommendations and guidance within an evidence-based framework, supplemented by expert clinical consensus.

MOOD DISORDERS COMMITTEE

Gin S Malhi (Chair), Erica Bell, Darryl Bassett, Philip Boyce, Richard Bryant, Philip Hazell, Malcolm Hopwood, Bill Lyndon, Roger Mulder, Richard Porter, Ajeet B Singh and Greg Murray.